From: Kent Karlsson (kentk@cs.chalmers.se)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 11:47:00 EDT
> > U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE might be
> > appropriate, but this has the problem that it is a break
opportunity,
> > which is not always appropriate.
>
> U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE is not appropriate, for the same reason
> the U+FEFF (or U+2060) is not appropriate: The Standard does
> not specify the display of non-spacing marks on it as a means
> of showing the marks without base characters. And, as you indicate,
> U+200B (but also U+FEFF and U+2060) are implicated in the control
> of line break opportunities. They are certainly not defined
> as glyph display anchors or some such.
I see no particular *technical* problem with using WJ, though. In
contrast
to the suggestion of using CGJ (re. another problem) anywhere else but
at the end of a combining sequence. CGJ has combining class 0, despite
being invisible and not ("visually") interfering with any other
combining
mark. Using CGJ at a non-final position in a combining sequence puts
in doubt the entire idea with combining classes and normal forms.
/kent k
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 15:00:57 EDT